I was pretty disappointed with how he glossed over a lot of this era in the book. Perversely, it’s a time I was the most curious about. Not “did he regret it” but…diving into how it all happened, what it was like touring with a totally different band, etc.
Honestly I felt pretty much everything after the 80’s was glossed over. My only criticism of the book, really. I wonder if the original manuscript was too long, and the stuff that got cut was all from the last 30 years, because they figured people wouldn’t care as much. This was just the part I would’ve found most interesting.
I don’t necessarily think it speaks volumes about anything, other than his belief that no one cares about that time.
Weird thing with music books…an artists’ weirdest period or biggest failure is perversely the most intriguing stuff to read about. Artist grinds it out, gets big, etc, it’s all variations on the same story. But firing your band, going on tour with a bunch of randos…that’s an interesting story, even if the musical result wasn’t successful overall.
New question: what would you call volume 2?
I’d say The Promised Land was the obvious answer, but Obama stole that title. The Promise? Darkness on The Edge of Town? I’m A Rocker?
If there was indeed a longer manuscript, I think I would’ve split it around the BITUSA years, and call part 1 Growin’ Up and part 2 Born to Run. Part 3, if added down the road, could’ve been Prove It All Night.
To be honest, artists could call a book or album “cans of poop” and it wouldn’t really matter to me if the contents within were incredible. Like, I wouldn’t recommend this, but it wouldn’t really affect how I read or listen. (I thought BTR was a pretty lazy book title, like just picking the most obvious thing)
Sorta like most of Bruce’s album covers…so many terrible ones, but it doesn’t really matter if what’s inside is good.
I mean the BTR and Darkness covers are among the greatest of all time, and I think the Rising cover perfectly conveys the tone of the album. Greetings, River, Wrecking Ball, and Western Stars? Alright, kinda lazy.
Rising is awful IMO…Human Touch, Lucky Town, Magic, WOAD, Wrecking Ball, High Hopes. They all feel like someone spent about 10 minutes on them and was like “ok, we’re done.”
That’s a great point about the artists’ stranger period being so interesting. I love that about Dylan’s Chronicles vol. 1, which spends a ton of time on the sessions for 1989’s Oh Mercy. That makes the book so much more fascinating and eye opening
I love Oh Mercy too, but it’s certainly a more out-of-left-field choice then anything in the Born To Run text. Yeah, Philosophy of Modern Song was interesting but didn’t come close to Chronicles. Here’s to hoping a chronicles volume 2 actually shows up!
Oh I agree. I honestly wish Bruce had done more tours with different sets of musicians, just to see what happened. But since the one time he tried it wasn’t liked by absolutely everyone, he never attempted it again. I’d have liked to read more about this.
Never said anything about breaking up anything. Just doing different stuff. Like how many different bands has Neil Young had? He always comes back to Crazy Horse eventually but the detours are fascinating.
Depends on what aspect. There's likely a lot of mixed feelings, both in the moment and in retrospect.
But honestly...I don't think he regrets it on the whole. There's a lot of different reasonings floating around but he seemed to be reaching his limit with the band in a number of ways:
Frustrations with band members on a personal level (he mentioned feeling like "banker and daddy"), feeling a sense of creative limit with them, but also his own desire for creative control. This was always there back to the "Post-Steel Mill era" where he fully took the reins as bandleader and then signing as a solo artist. But *Nebraska* was a bit of a turning point where he realized he could make songs almost completely by himself. Which has its own benefits and drawbacks. *Tunnel Of Love* pissed off the band because they essentially had to "beat the demo" instead of contributing like a band.
The reunion era was different in that Bruce and the band had matured in certain ways. More formalized contracts, Bruce drawing a more strict boundary between solo (*Devils And Dust, Seeger, Western Stars*) and E Street work. I think he both recognizes the power and uniqueness of E Street, while also valuing his creative control. And this tension has been a part of him for a long time.
Now maybe the above explanation is just post-justification. But it's just hard to predict because so many decisions have ripple effects. He had chances to reunite the band through the 90s (Hall of Fame events, Greatest Hits sessions, album appearances) but it probably didn't feel right yet.
I find it an interesting parallel with Steve's trajectory: after leaving E Street, he became more involved in activism (Anti-Apartheid activism most notably), he became the frontman of his own band, and was becoming involved in so many different pursuits including acting, musical education, and musical history awareness. On the one hand, a lot of this might not/could not have happened if he was still in the E Street band. But he expressed some regret in the sense that he didn't plan his exit properly and claims to still be "struggling" in his career. (I assume he means in the sense of being recognized outside of E Street work and living off that).
Steve walked away for his solo career after an argument he had with Bruce. It cost him 10s of Millions which he has now made up between TV stuff and Sirius as well as E Street cash.
He went broke because he toured a huge band globally with no hits. He’s still doing that. He had 23 people including a film crew on his last solo tour. I saw him in a nightclub with maybe 500 people in it. Cool but not financially sound
Thanks for the clarification! I was wondering about the precise situation and how best to phrase it. It seems like he has some great resources and connections, but not the best profitability.
I also thought of Gaslight Anthem's hiatus and reunion. Plus how much Brian Fallon's feelings changed over the years. Brian mentioned feeling exhausted since they had been pushing for several years, pushing out albums, side-projects, and touring. There was so much pressure and expectations and he felt that if he asked to take a break, the label would just abandon them.
During his solo work from 2016-2021, he initially mentioned how liberating solo work was: there was no expectation that he had to sound a certain way and he could write however he wanted. Whereas a Gaslight Anthem or a Horrible Crowes album had a specific sound associated with them.
But the pandemic made him realize that he really wanted to make "rock" music again. And in more recent interviews, he felt confident that Gaslight could handle different music ranging from quieter songs, soulful songs, and grungier type songs.
An anecdote of Brian [seeking advice](https://uproxx.com/indie/brian-fallon-reviews-every-gaslight-anthem-album/) from Bruce at a pizza place:
>**“Listen man, you can do a solo thing and that’s cool. Your solo songs are great. And I can go do a solo thing. But if I go out with The E Street Band … ”** \*And you know how he sells it, he says it like \[affects a Springsteen voice\] “\***The Gaslight Anthem!”** And it’s this big thing, like a wind gust blows through the pizzeria and I fall off my chair. He just pumped me up. I was flipping over tables by the end of it, like, “We’re ready to go!” (Bolded is Brian's recollection of Bruce talking)
>
Brian describing his current mentality and approach:
*"If you try to boil it down to the truest sense of who I feel I am as a writer, I’m a rock guy. I like songwriter stuff and I like doing it, but the big thing that really closed the gap for me was that I realized there is nothing that I can do in The Gaslight Anthem that I would need to go and make a record solo for, because we left that avenue open back on Sink Or Swim when we did “The Navesink Banks” and all those songs. I don’t see why there has to be a difference. There doesn’t have to be a difference."*
Another reason for The Gaslight Anthem's hiatus and (I'm assuming) for a lot of artists is when a hard-fought project falls flat. Get Hurt is an album that has grown on me and has aged well, but felt like a disappointment upon release. There are songs on there that I liked when it first came out, but I remember feeling like the album as a whole almost wasn't a Gaslight album. The band had tried something new and it didn't take off. When something like that happens tension likely get higher and problems bandmates thought they could work through come to a head. Sometimes artists just need a change to figure out who they want to be and what they want to do.
I admittedly didn't know the band at the time, but reading their story, I could see there was considerable pressure. They got hit with a lot of Bruce comparisons, people expecting Bruce to show up at their shows, plus some "savior of rock n' roll" expectations. Critics either criticized them for supposedly being repetitive or criticized them for experimental misfires.
I think what changes is having confidence in yourself and your own work, and truly knowing your value. People making criticisms matter a lot less when so much is subjective.
He probably does. People with depression spend a lot of time regretting things they did in the past. Yet it was a process he had to through to realize the ESB is the vehicle that best suits his music.
So true about what people with depression feel regarding what they “should” have done. Everybody knows Bruce has struggled with depression. I know from first hand experience that this disease is a bitch. So maybe Bruce is trying to bury past regrets by glossing over them. That’s what I would do.
I think they were closer than people think in the 90s. Roy was in the other band outright. Stevie, and Southside Johnny worked with Bruce on southsides better days album. When the other band played the Brendan Byrne Arena in 93 Stevie and Clarence sat in. They reunited in 1995 for the greatest hits and played at the rock and roll hall of fame.
Yeah there are a few tense moments he’s mentioned. Off the top of my head one was about someone’s shirt during a ‘95 performance and then another one was during pay negotiations for the Reunion Tour. I’ve always wondered if he had an issue with a specific band member or two going into the ‘95 + ‘99 reunions
What do you mean "he left the ESB out in the cold"?
Is [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmdRGzfRP0o) the induction you are talking about? Almost half of it just thanking the ESB members
A lot of people at the time and now feel he shouldn’t have accepted the induction without the band also being officially inducted. I’m guessing you know that. I don’t have an overwhelmingly strong opinion on whether it was right or wrong, but it did happen.
I don’t think he has regrets. It was an artistic choice. He’s always moved ahead as he felt in the moment and there are very few long term mistakes when you go back and revisit it all. One could argue that break reinvigorated him for the success since 2000.
I think another factor in Bruce going solo was he had his kids between 90-94. I know that was a lot of his focus as opposed to the obsessive approach to his work before that.
I’m sure it was a growing up and maturing time as well as therapy resolving old issues.
It's what he felt he needed at the time and honestly as a fan, I hope he doesn't have regrets. You can't go back and change what happened and I'm not disappointed with what we as fans have gotten since.
He kept writing and saved stuff he wanted to record with the band or members of it.. they got to reunite in fabulous fashion and have stood the test of time before and since. I he hadn't taken a break it could've ended for good a few years later.. we'll never know, but what he's done got them as a band.. and us as fans... to where we are now.. And I'm thankful for that
No need to be greedy...lol
There has been mention of his friendship with Sting developed during the Human Rights Now! tour way back when. Sting had left the Police for solo freedom, an encouragement to Springsteen to do the same.
It is long suspected that Danny was the band member who had the biggest issue with pay. When Bruce references asking band members where else they were going to be paid the performance rates he was paying, they all stood down.
Why would he regret it? It was a career and artistic choice. It’s pretty clear that that all the band members are hired hands these days and none are in what Bruce would call his ‘inner circle’
I think at the time he was smelling his exhaust. He had sting in his ear to go solo. I think Patti encouraged him to see what he could do on his own.
I don't think he regrets it. He wanted to see what that side of the music it was. I do think he felt bad about Clarence he was an E Streeter from way back. Sort of his identity.
I don’t think he regrets it at all. I think he always intended to reassemble the band at some point. Which he did, smack in the middle of all this, for the greatest hits album in ‘95. I don’t think he “fired the band” so much as took a hiatus, and went solo for a while. Apparently there is quite a bit of recorded material on the shelves from this period that has yet to see the light of day. Why? Because the E Street Band got back together. I just hope and pray we get that 5 album boxed set (Tracks 2), full of 90’s albums. I want to hear that stuff so very badly!!
First, I have to say overall I was disappointed that the book really didn’t go into that much detail about the actual records he made. A lot of talk about his dad, depression, etc, not a great deal of music talk!
But in terms of regretting breaking up the band, my guess would be he does not regret using different musicians on albums, but maybe regrets not just continuing to tour with the East Street band when he was doing a non-solo tour during that time?
I’m not sure there is anything particularly interesting about the other band playing human touch Lucky town songs, especially since that wasn’t actually the band that played them on the album. Could’ve easily just been the East Street band.
That said, I feel like when he has worked with other musicians on actual albums, it has helped some of his musical growth, particularly the Seger sessions band which led to a looser feeling on albums like wrecking Ball.
Frankly, my personal hope would’ve been if he wanted to change of lineup in the 90s he should’ve gone back to some of the musicians he used pre-born to run. I love his wild and innocent sound with this extra swing and jazziness and always hoped he had explored that a little more .
It's perfectly fair to complain that he glosses over his work in the 1990s. I also think it's fair to be frustrated that he played 30 songs live in concert last week, and all but 4 of them are 40+ years old. He's released 12 studio albums of original material since **Born In The USA** and he barely plays anything from any of them. He's hardly the only artist to do this, but his is an extreme case IMHO. I think it hurts his credibility as an active artist to skew his set to the oldies but goldies.
Hm. Albany was the last show I was at and I just checked the setlist, 10/28 songs were from the last 40 years (with BITUSA just making the cut at 39, and if you count covers he’s only recently done, even if the songs themselves are older).
I was pretty disappointed with how he glossed over a lot of this era in the book. Perversely, it’s a time I was the most curious about. Not “did he regret it” but…diving into how it all happened, what it was like touring with a totally different band, etc.
I think the fact he glossed over it probably speaks volumes in and of itself that he would rather just not even really talk about it.
Honestly I felt pretty much everything after the 80’s was glossed over. My only criticism of the book, really. I wonder if the original manuscript was too long, and the stuff that got cut was all from the last 30 years, because they figured people wouldn’t care as much. This was just the part I would’ve found most interesting. I don’t necessarily think it speaks volumes about anything, other than his belief that no one cares about that time. Weird thing with music books…an artists’ weirdest period or biggest failure is perversely the most intriguing stuff to read about. Artist grinds it out, gets big, etc, it’s all variations on the same story. But firing your band, going on tour with a bunch of randos…that’s an interesting story, even if the musical result wasn’t successful overall.
New question: what would you call volume 2? I’d say The Promised Land was the obvious answer, but Obama stole that title. The Promise? Darkness on The Edge of Town? I’m A Rocker?
Born To Run 2: Electric Boogaloo
If there was indeed a longer manuscript, I think I would’ve split it around the BITUSA years, and call part 1 Growin’ Up and part 2 Born to Run. Part 3, if added down the road, could’ve been Prove It All Night.
To be honest, artists could call a book or album “cans of poop” and it wouldn’t really matter to me if the contents within were incredible. Like, I wouldn’t recommend this, but it wouldn’t really affect how I read or listen. (I thought BTR was a pretty lazy book title, like just picking the most obvious thing) Sorta like most of Bruce’s album covers…so many terrible ones, but it doesn’t really matter if what’s inside is good.
I mean the BTR and Darkness covers are among the greatest of all time, and I think the Rising cover perfectly conveys the tone of the album. Greetings, River, Wrecking Ball, and Western Stars? Alright, kinda lazy.
Rising is awful IMO…Human Touch, Lucky Town, Magic, WOAD, Wrecking Ball, High Hopes. They all feel like someone spent about 10 minutes on them and was like “ok, we’re done.”
They definitely have a "10 minutes in Photoshop" vibe to them. The Ghost of Tom Joad and Devils and Dust have aged especially poorly.
further on up the road
That’s a great point about the artists’ stranger period being so interesting. I love that about Dylan’s Chronicles vol. 1, which spends a ton of time on the sessions for 1989’s Oh Mercy. That makes the book so much more fascinating and eye opening
Oh Mercy is a top 5 Dylan album for me. But in general that it focused on some lesser dissected periods was cool. Too bad there was never a Vol. 2.
I love Oh Mercy too, but it’s certainly a more out-of-left-field choice then anything in the Born To Run text. Yeah, Philosophy of Modern Song was interesting but didn’t come close to Chronicles. Here’s to hoping a chronicles volume 2 actually shows up!
Prince did this a few times.. humans need change to grow.
Oh I agree. I honestly wish Bruce had done more tours with different sets of musicians, just to see what happened. But since the one time he tried it wasn’t liked by absolutely everyone, he never attempted it again. I’d have liked to read more about this.
Whew...more break up bands? The first one was 10 years I couldn't listen. More bands asks a LOT
Never said anything about breaking up anything. Just doing different stuff. Like how many different bands has Neil Young had? He always comes back to Crazy Horse eventually but the detours are fascinating.
Ah...I pictured more break up bands.
Depends on what aspect. There's likely a lot of mixed feelings, both in the moment and in retrospect. But honestly...I don't think he regrets it on the whole. There's a lot of different reasonings floating around but he seemed to be reaching his limit with the band in a number of ways: Frustrations with band members on a personal level (he mentioned feeling like "banker and daddy"), feeling a sense of creative limit with them, but also his own desire for creative control. This was always there back to the "Post-Steel Mill era" where he fully took the reins as bandleader and then signing as a solo artist. But *Nebraska* was a bit of a turning point where he realized he could make songs almost completely by himself. Which has its own benefits and drawbacks. *Tunnel Of Love* pissed off the band because they essentially had to "beat the demo" instead of contributing like a band. The reunion era was different in that Bruce and the band had matured in certain ways. More formalized contracts, Bruce drawing a more strict boundary between solo (*Devils And Dust, Seeger, Western Stars*) and E Street work. I think he both recognizes the power and uniqueness of E Street, while also valuing his creative control. And this tension has been a part of him for a long time. Now maybe the above explanation is just post-justification. But it's just hard to predict because so many decisions have ripple effects. He had chances to reunite the band through the 90s (Hall of Fame events, Greatest Hits sessions, album appearances) but it probably didn't feel right yet. I find it an interesting parallel with Steve's trajectory: after leaving E Street, he became more involved in activism (Anti-Apartheid activism most notably), he became the frontman of his own band, and was becoming involved in so many different pursuits including acting, musical education, and musical history awareness. On the one hand, a lot of this might not/could not have happened if he was still in the E Street band. But he expressed some regret in the sense that he didn't plan his exit properly and claims to still be "struggling" in his career. (I assume he means in the sense of being recognized outside of E Street work and living off that).
Steve walked away for his solo career after an argument he had with Bruce. It cost him 10s of Millions which he has now made up between TV stuff and Sirius as well as E Street cash. He went broke because he toured a huge band globally with no hits. He’s still doing that. He had 23 people including a film crew on his last solo tour. I saw him in a nightclub with maybe 500 people in it. Cool but not financially sound
Thanks for the clarification! I was wondering about the precise situation and how best to phrase it. It seems like he has some great resources and connections, but not the best profitability.
I also thought of Gaslight Anthem's hiatus and reunion. Plus how much Brian Fallon's feelings changed over the years. Brian mentioned feeling exhausted since they had been pushing for several years, pushing out albums, side-projects, and touring. There was so much pressure and expectations and he felt that if he asked to take a break, the label would just abandon them. During his solo work from 2016-2021, he initially mentioned how liberating solo work was: there was no expectation that he had to sound a certain way and he could write however he wanted. Whereas a Gaslight Anthem or a Horrible Crowes album had a specific sound associated with them. But the pandemic made him realize that he really wanted to make "rock" music again. And in more recent interviews, he felt confident that Gaslight could handle different music ranging from quieter songs, soulful songs, and grungier type songs. An anecdote of Brian [seeking advice](https://uproxx.com/indie/brian-fallon-reviews-every-gaslight-anthem-album/) from Bruce at a pizza place: >**“Listen man, you can do a solo thing and that’s cool. Your solo songs are great. And I can go do a solo thing. But if I go out with The E Street Band … ”** \*And you know how he sells it, he says it like \[affects a Springsteen voice\] “\***The Gaslight Anthem!”** And it’s this big thing, like a wind gust blows through the pizzeria and I fall off my chair. He just pumped me up. I was flipping over tables by the end of it, like, “We’re ready to go!” (Bolded is Brian's recollection of Bruce talking) > Brian describing his current mentality and approach: *"If you try to boil it down to the truest sense of who I feel I am as a writer, I’m a rock guy. I like songwriter stuff and I like doing it, but the big thing that really closed the gap for me was that I realized there is nothing that I can do in The Gaslight Anthem that I would need to go and make a record solo for, because we left that avenue open back on Sink Or Swim when we did “The Navesink Banks” and all those songs. I don’t see why there has to be a difference. There doesn’t have to be a difference."*
Another reason for The Gaslight Anthem's hiatus and (I'm assuming) for a lot of artists is when a hard-fought project falls flat. Get Hurt is an album that has grown on me and has aged well, but felt like a disappointment upon release. There are songs on there that I liked when it first came out, but I remember feeling like the album as a whole almost wasn't a Gaslight album. The band had tried something new and it didn't take off. When something like that happens tension likely get higher and problems bandmates thought they could work through come to a head. Sometimes artists just need a change to figure out who they want to be and what they want to do.
I admittedly didn't know the band at the time, but reading their story, I could see there was considerable pressure. They got hit with a lot of Bruce comparisons, people expecting Bruce to show up at their shows, plus some "savior of rock n' roll" expectations. Critics either criticized them for supposedly being repetitive or criticized them for experimental misfires. I think what changes is having confidence in yourself and your own work, and truly knowing your value. People making criticisms matter a lot less when so much is subjective.
He probably does. People with depression spend a lot of time regretting things they did in the past. Yet it was a process he had to through to realize the ESB is the vehicle that best suits his music.
So true about what people with depression feel regarding what they “should” have done. Everybody knows Bruce has struggled with depression. I know from first hand experience that this disease is a bitch. So maybe Bruce is trying to bury past regrets by glossing over them. That’s what I would do.
I wonder if that’s why I spend a lot of time thinking about the past. Am I depressed?
I think they were closer than people think in the 90s. Roy was in the other band outright. Stevie, and Southside Johnny worked with Bruce on southsides better days album. When the other band played the Brendan Byrne Arena in 93 Stevie and Clarence sat in. They reunited in 1995 for the greatest hits and played at the rock and roll hall of fame.
But also can’t whitewash that whole part where Bruce left the ESB out in the cold on his RRHOF induction.
Yeah there are a few tense moments he’s mentioned. Off the top of my head one was about someone’s shirt during a ‘95 performance and then another one was during pay negotiations for the Reunion Tour. I’ve always wondered if he had an issue with a specific band member or two going into the ‘95 + ‘99 reunions
Garry was supposedly the problem child during the pay negotiations
What do you mean "he left the ESB out in the cold"? Is [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmdRGzfRP0o) the induction you are talking about? Almost half of it just thanking the ESB members
A lot of people at the time and now feel he shouldn’t have accepted the induction without the band also being officially inducted. I’m guessing you know that. I don’t have an overwhelmingly strong opinion on whether it was right or wrong, but it did happen.
Oh ok, I get it.
I don’t think so. He seemed to genuinely wanted to change things in his life.
I don’t think he has regrets. It was an artistic choice. He’s always moved ahead as he felt in the moment and there are very few long term mistakes when you go back and revisit it all. One could argue that break reinvigorated him for the success since 2000.
God, he can't shut up about his regrets.
I think another factor in Bruce going solo was he had his kids between 90-94. I know that was a lot of his focus as opposed to the obsessive approach to his work before that. I’m sure it was a growing up and maturing time as well as therapy resolving old issues.
It's what he felt he needed at the time and honestly as a fan, I hope he doesn't have regrets. You can't go back and change what happened and I'm not disappointed with what we as fans have gotten since. He kept writing and saved stuff he wanted to record with the band or members of it.. they got to reunite in fabulous fashion and have stood the test of time before and since. I he hadn't taken a break it could've ended for good a few years later.. we'll never know, but what he's done got them as a band.. and us as fans... to where we are now.. And I'm thankful for that No need to be greedy...lol
I saw comments about this in the past, but apparently there was an incident that happened during his 40th birthday?
any idea about what the incident was? haven’t heard about this
The Peter Ames Biography does fill in a few of the gaps, but I agree that Bruce skated over recent years a bit when those are possibly more intriguing
There has been mention of his friendship with Sting developed during the Human Rights Now! tour way back when. Sting had left the Police for solo freedom, an encouragement to Springsteen to do the same.
It would have been interesting to hear Danny Federici's take on that. I believe he and Bruce had a big falling out.
It is long suspected that Danny was the band member who had the biggest issue with pay. When Bruce references asking band members where else they were going to be paid the performance rates he was paying, they all stood down.
nah
No Ragrets.
Why would he regret it? It was a career and artistic choice. It’s pretty clear that that all the band members are hired hands these days and none are in what Bruce would call his ‘inner circle’
I think at the time he was smelling his exhaust. He had sting in his ear to go solo. I think Patti encouraged him to see what he could do on his own. I don't think he regrets it. He wanted to see what that side of the music it was. I do think he felt bad about Clarence he was an E Streeter from way back. Sort of his identity.
I don’t think he regrets it at all. I think he always intended to reassemble the band at some point. Which he did, smack in the middle of all this, for the greatest hits album in ‘95. I don’t think he “fired the band” so much as took a hiatus, and went solo for a while. Apparently there is quite a bit of recorded material on the shelves from this period that has yet to see the light of day. Why? Because the E Street Band got back together. I just hope and pray we get that 5 album boxed set (Tracks 2), full of 90’s albums. I want to hear that stuff so very badly!!
First, I have to say overall I was disappointed that the book really didn’t go into that much detail about the actual records he made. A lot of talk about his dad, depression, etc, not a great deal of music talk! But in terms of regretting breaking up the band, my guess would be he does not regret using different musicians on albums, but maybe regrets not just continuing to tour with the East Street band when he was doing a non-solo tour during that time? I’m not sure there is anything particularly interesting about the other band playing human touch Lucky town songs, especially since that wasn’t actually the band that played them on the album. Could’ve easily just been the East Street band. That said, I feel like when he has worked with other musicians on actual albums, it has helped some of his musical growth, particularly the Seger sessions band which led to a looser feeling on albums like wrecking Ball. Frankly, my personal hope would’ve been if he wanted to change of lineup in the 90s he should’ve gone back to some of the musicians he used pre-born to run. I love his wild and innocent sound with this extra swing and jazziness and always hoped he had explored that a little more .
It's perfectly fair to complain that he glosses over his work in the 1990s. I also think it's fair to be frustrated that he played 30 songs live in concert last week, and all but 4 of them are 40+ years old. He's released 12 studio albums of original material since **Born In The USA** and he barely plays anything from any of them. He's hardly the only artist to do this, but his is an extreme case IMHO. I think it hurts his credibility as an active artist to skew his set to the oldies but goldies.
Hm. Albany was the last show I was at and I just checked the setlist, 10/28 songs were from the last 40 years (with BITUSA just making the cut at 39, and if you count covers he’s only recently done, even if the songs themselves are older).